Actually I was wrong, they are in the Reptilia class, but are a seperate "branch". Oh how I wish organizing these things was easier. they keep coming up with extra things beyond kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genus species. Science marches on as we get more information.

Vellum, chill. Anyway, I never said a fish has to poop out a human. Slow change still should result in a transitional being. Slow, fast, who cares. And I do read links. Thanks.

aw, a nice little attempt at an insult. How Christian. Slow change *has* resulted in a transitional being. Again, failure to actually know what you are attacking.

Attempt at an insult? Christian? You expect a please and thank you after every comment? Anyhooo, you missed my point. Where are the transitions? Everything is in constant transition? So, where/what are they? What is a dog between? What is a mouse between?

Attempt at an insult? Christian? You expect a please and thank you after every comment? Anyhooo, you missed my point. Where are the transitions? Everything is in constant transition? So, where/what are they? What is a dog between? What is a mouse between?

ROFL. Oh my. Yes, rockv, an attempt at an insult by you, a Christian. I've seen better. The transitions are shown in those links I gave you. We have quite a nice sequence of how whales transitioned from land dwelling to water dwelling. That’s what evolution does. It usually takes a very long time but sometimes it doesn’t depending the the life span of the affected organism and the strength of the environmental change. But you have no idea of that. Again, you show you have yet to know what evolutionary theory says. I’ve asked you to tell me what you think it says, but I haven’t seen that yet. I’ll give this a whirl but I’m pretty sure it will be rather pointless.

Animals and plants evolve when environmental pressures act on them. Any individual who has a quality that allows them to survive in a new environment better will have a better chance at passing that quality along to offspring. This leads to evolution and the splitting into species. Now, the word species is still up for debate in some ways but the generally accepted as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. They share the same physiology, the same behaviors, etc that allow them to breed. Now, to clarify, if there are no environmental pressures, things don’t change. Great White Sharks for example, they have been essentially the same for millions of years. They fit very well into their environment and thus have no pressure to select for anything different.

Now, take dogs. Dogs apparently come from the wolf and this is known by molecular evidence, comparing their DNA. Wolves were impacted by humans and those that could stand being around humans became a different group since they would be impacted by human civilization as an environment that they were better at than other wolves who had different qualities, and would no longer be affected by the environmental forces in the wild away from humans. Humanity has been the environmental pressure that gets us all of the crazy shapes, sizes and behaviors that we see in domesticated dogs. Genetics show that this: is likely the basic “dog”. Some of these are so severe that a Chihuahua can’t breed with a St. Bernard. They might want to but they can’t physically. So we have a likely split into a new species right there and as humans want weirder and weirder dogs, the extremes will grow. Wolves evolved from carnivorans which share similar traits but found different niches (this is where felines come from too. Cats do different things than dogs so they fit different environmental niches). The carnivorans came from earlier creatures called Miacoidea. And on and on. How do we know? by physiology and DNA when we can find it. The same science that allows us to identify people from skeletal remains is the same that says that these creatures are related.

All of the above is what Darwin observed with the Galapagos island finches. They were from a base stock, then spread to the islands, where differing conditions put pressure on them and the most suited for the environment flourished. They no longer interbreed. And they are very identifiable because of their physiology.

Like many creationists, I’m guessing that no matter how many transitional fossils we find, no matter how seamless the transition, you still would refuse to accept it because you are afraid. A common joke about creationists is that for every transitional fossil discovered, they’d whine that it only means that two more have to be found to be “believable.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Isn't there something in the Bible about turning the other cheek, and doing good to those who despise you? That doesn't mean you have to say please and thank you after every comment, but it does mean you should go to the effort to be polite when you comment, even if the other person isn't.

Attempt at an insult? Christian? You expect a please and thank you after every comment? Anyhooo, you missed my point. Where are the transitions? Everything is in constant transition? So, where/what are they? What is a dog between? What is a mouse between?

ROFL. Oh my. Yes, rockv, an attempt at an insult by you, a Christian. I've seen better. The transitions are shown in those links I gave you. We have quite a nice sequence of how whales transitioned from land dwelling to water dwelling. That’s what evolution does. It usually takes a very long time but sometimes it doesn’t depending the the life span of the affected organism and the strength of the environmental change. But you have no idea of that. Again, you show you have yet to know what evolutionary theory says. I’ve asked you to tell me what you think it says, but I haven’t seen that yet. I’ll give this a whirl but I’m pretty sure it will be rather pointless.

Animals and plants evolve when environmental pressures act on them. Any individual who has a quality that allows them to survive in a new environment better will have a better chance at passing that quality along to offspring. This leads to evolution and the splitting into species. Now, the word species is still up for debate in some ways but the generally accepted as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. They share the same physiology, the same behaviors, etc that allow them to breed. Now, to clarify, if there are no environmental pressures, things don’t change. Great White Sharks for example, they have been essentially the same for millions of years. They fit very well into their environment and thus have no pressure to select for anything different.

Now, take dogs. Dogs apparently come from the wolf and this is known by molecular evidence, comparing their DNA. Wolves were impacted by humans and those that could stand being around humans became a different group since they would be impacted by human civilization as an environment that they were better at than other wolves who had different qualities, and would no longer be affected by the environmental forces in the wild away from humans. Humanity has been the environmental pressure that gets us all of the crazy shapes, sizes and behaviors that we see in domesticated dogs. Genetics show that this: is likely the basic “dog”. Some of these are so severe that a Chihuahua can’t breed with a St. Bernard. They might want to but they can’t physically. So we have a likely split into a new species right there and as humans want weirder and weirder dogs, the extremes will grow. Wolves evolved from carnivorans which share similar traits but found different niches (this is where felines come from too. Cats do different things than dogs so they fit different environmental niches). The carnivorans came from earlier creatures called Miacoidea. And on and on. How do we know? by physiology and DNA when we can find it. The same science that allows us to identify people from skeletal remains is the same that says that these creatures are related.

All of the above is what Darwin observed with the Galapagos island finches. They were from a base stock, then spread to the islands, where differing conditions put pressure on them and the most suited for the environment flourished. They no longer interbreed. And they are very identifiable because of their physiology.

Like many creationists, I’m guessing that no matter how many transitional fossils we find, no matter how seamless the transition, you still would refuse to accept it because you are afraid. A common joke about creationists is that for every transitional fossil discovered, they’d whine that it only means that two more have to be found to be “believable.

I understand evolution and what it says. What you wrote is not news to me. But I appreciate the time you took. The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok. Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition? I'm not being difficult but serious. Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another. Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!". The question is actually more of.."WHY?" Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath? This is where evolution takes extreme guesses. Why would an animal develop a wing? What purpose would it serve? To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all. Any ideas? And was that polite enough???

The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok. Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition? I'm not being difficult but serious. Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another. Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!".

No, it actually isn't based on preconceived notions. That's not science. Science is taking the evidence and making an explanation that fits with it, then having other people take a crack at it to make sure it fits.

Quote from: rockv12

The question is actually more of.."WHY?" Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath? This is where evolution takes extreme guesses.

Whales don't try to breathe underwater. They have to surface to take a breath. So, no extreme guesses needed, just simple logic and not making assumptions. It stands to reason that having the breathing passage between the mouth and the eyes is not very efficient for a mammal that spends its time underwater, because it has to lift its head most of the way out of the water in order to breathe. Therefore, it makes sense that a whale which had a random mutation, where the breathing passage is on top of the head instead of in front of it, would be able to do much better in terms of hunting for food and evading predators.

Quote from: rockv12

Why would an animal develop a wing? What purpose would it serve? To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all. Any ideas? And was that polite enough???

First off, large animals do not generally develop wings, because their body mass is too heavy to fly. But there's little doubt that the ability to fly or even glide would be very advantageous, so a smaller animal that developed something like wings (even if they were only useful for short glides at first) would have an advantage over predators and competitors which couldn't fly at all.

I understand evolution and what it says. What you wrote is not news to me. But I appreciate the time you took. The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok. Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition? I'm not being difficult but serious. Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another. Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!". The question is actually more of.."WHY?" Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath? This is where evolution takes extreme guesses. Why would an animal develop a wing? What purpose would it serve? To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all. Any ideas? And was that polite enough???

There are answers to all those. But they do not consciously develop anything. In fact evolution has no direction. When land was empty, it was of advantage for plants to go there, as no animals ate them there. Animals followed.

I understand evolution and what it says. What you wrote is not news to me. But I appreciate the time you took. The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok. Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition? I'm not being difficult but serious. Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another. Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!". The question is actually more of.."WHY?" Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath? This is where evolution takes extreme guesses. Why would an animal develop a wing? What purpose would it serve? To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all. Any ideas? And was that polite enough???

Politeness-wise, not bad. We've had worse.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution involves "why's". It doesn't. What it does involve is trillions of by-products. A small genetic change might give a little mouse slightly more fur, so he is able to live a little further north. Maybe not the first generation, because there is only one, but if he fathers some slightly furrier kids and those kids make even more slightly furrier little dudes then maybe some of them indeed move further north and open up a new niche and do just fine and over time they become a new species.

And why did whales go back to the water? That was perhaps a by-product of being chased off of the land by bigger things with bigger teeth, and having little choice. And if said pre-whales happened to be sort of watery fellows in the first place, then their chance of adapting to an even waterier environment are increased. Given the the closest relative to whales still living on land is the venerable and usually wet hippo, that is not out of the question.

It also doesn't mean they went from living mostly on land to living entirely in the sea in one fell swoop. A more plausible explanation would be that they moved into wetter environments, slowly adapted to spending more time in the water, and eventually were able to swim away from land. With millions of years to play with, and genes that never make perfect copies anyway, such alteration in critters, over time, is not that silly a proposition. And we have the a fossil record to back up this scenario.

Evolution is happening right now. Monsanto has been making the herbicide "Roundup" for many years. Recently they found that various weed species are starting to be less affected by the product. Because they are developing immunity to the deadly stuff being sprayed on them. They aren't evolving into Roundup proof species for a reason, but as a by-product of genetic variation. Some small number of each of those weeds always had the ability to survive a dousing of human-made poison, and when the ones that couldn't survive being poisoned died off, the only plants left to reproduce were the ones that could. And what could most of their offspring do. Survive more Roundup.

Now that wasn't "natural" evolution in the sense that the pressure put on those various weed species was very instant and almost always fatal. The selection process involved two things. Being genetically prone to surviving one specific substance, and having others that survived around to pollinate with.

In hindsight we can say why hippos and whales parted company, and why weeds are surviving certain pesticides, but when each of those things started, there were not any genes running around with iPads, researching their various options and deciding to whip out a few wings or make eyeballs. Genetic variation happened, it usually made no difference or killed the critters, but sometimes it did something that was advantageous. And that was relevant only if said advantaged plant or animal lived long enough to reproduce and pass on the new genetic combination.

Those who study fossils can pick up a bone from a known species and tell you how long ago that critter lived and in which geologic age it existed. The can also tell you in which geologic ages it did not exist. And guess what. You can't find the fossilized remains of such critters anywhere but where the paleontologists say it should be. If you could go out and find (without trickery) and a Silurian period sea scorpion or a Devonian period fish buried anywhere in stone identified as being from the Mesozoic era, you would undo evolution in one fell swoop. And get a Nobel Prize in the process.

And don't go saying the game is rigged. A paleontologist or geologist can show you exactly where you will be able to find only Cenozoic or only Paleozoic critters, and they can show you ahead of time which fossils are which. If you can then go dig into one age of stone and find critters previously described as being from another era, you win. You can't.

Life left too much evidence behind, and those who study such things have figured out what goes where. It's printed on paper and stored on hard drives. Were you to go out and find something in the wrong place, there is no way science could say "Oh, we made a little mistake in that one instance..." We know where that evidence belongs. And everybody has been told. Science has made it's findings public record. If you can find something that does not match that record, hooray for you. But again, you can't. It doesn't exist.

But the mere fact that it doesn't tie in with the biblical version of how life happened is all you need to diss it in an instant. And the only problem with that is that you have to either make stuff up or just stand there and say that's silly. Because you can't attack evolution with facts.

Notice how I ignored that you never answer my question about how a god could have an ear. There had to be a reason there too, if he is real. How did it evolve? But ignore that for now. Pay attention to the rest of my post. And tell me why we should throw evolution. That it doesn't match your bible is not a good reason. Because facts trump faith every single time.

Hope I've been polite too.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution involves "why's". It doesn't. What it does involve is trillions of by-products. A small genetic change might give a little mouse slightly more fur, so he is able to live a little further north. Maybe not the first generation, because there is only one, but if he fathers some slightly furrier kids and those kids make even more slightly furrier little dudes then maybe some of them indeed move further north and open up a new niche and do just fine and over time they become a new species.

And why did whales go back to the water? That was perhaps a by-product of being chased off of the land by bigger things with bigger teeth, and having little choice. And if said pre-whales happened to be sort of watery fellows in the first place, then their chance of adapting to an even waterier environment are increased. Given the the closest relative to whales still living on land is the venerable and usually wet hippo, that is not out of the question.

It also doesn't mean they went from living mostly on land to living entirely in the sea in one fell swoop. A more plausible explanation would be that they moved into wetter environments, slowly adapted to spending more time in the water, and eventually were able to swim away from land. With millions of years to play with, and genes that never make perfect copies anyway, such alteration in critters, over time, is not that silly a proposition. And we have the a fossil record to back up this scenario.

Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it? But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses. Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases. Therefore, shall we look at some other situations? Let's start with the development of the eyeball. I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light. The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it. The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives! And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist....now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

Notice how I ignored that you never answer my question about how a god could have an ear. There had to be a reason there too, if he is real. How did it evolve? But ignore that for now. Pay attention to the rest of my post. And tell me why we should throw evolution. That it doesn't match your bible is not a good reason. Because facts trump faith every single time.

Hope I've been polite too.

Sorry, yes, I ignored it, because I thought it was a joke or something. Didn't really give it any thought. Thing about a God and supernatural world/whatnot is.... We can't imagine a God. Does He have an ear? How did it form? How did God get there? These questions may never be answered in this life. Just like a million other questions that blow our mind! We can't fathom eternity....When did time begin? We can't fathom space going on forever and ever. We can't fathom so many things that it's impossible to say whether or not something is possible or impossible. Could it be that there exists another dimension of reality? Some supernatural world where a God exists? Of course, we have NO reason to believe there isn't. Just like we have no reason to believe that time doesn't stop or begin. Questions plagueing the human mind for years. But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless. We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see. Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer. Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it? Why is that so absurd?

First off, large animals do not generally develop wings, because their body mass is too heavy to fly. But there's little doubt that the ability to fly or even glide would be very advantageous, so a smaller animal that developed something like wings (even if they were only useful for short glides at first) would have an advantage over predators and competitors which couldn't fly at all.

Large/small...who cares? And the first wing allowed it to glide? And the hummingbird took this to the extreme, I guess.... Think about the picture you are painting in your mind. Think about how ridiculous that looks and sounds. Think about the steps involved that you say happened for birds to develop flight. It is so far advanced beyond "gliding to avoid a captor", that it becomes absurd.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution involves "why's". It doesn't. What it does involve is trillions of by-products. A small genetic change might give a little mouse slightly more fur, so he is able to live a little further north. Maybe not the first generation, because there is only one, but if he fathers some slightly furrier kids and those kids make even more slightly furrier little dudes then maybe some of them indeed move further north and open up a new niche and do just fine and over time they become a new species.

And why did whales go back to the water? That was perhaps a by-product of being chased off of the land by bigger things with bigger teeth, and having little choice. And if said pre-whales happened to be sort of watery fellows in the first place, then their chance of adapting to an even waterier environment are increased. Given the the closest relative to whales still living on land is the venerable and usually wet hippo, that is not out of the question.

It also doesn't mean they went from living mostly on land to living entirely in the sea in one fell swoop. A more plausible explanation would be that they moved into wetter environments, slowly adapted to spending more time in the water, and eventually were able to swim away from land. With millions of years to play with, and genes that never make perfect copies anyway, such alteration in critters, over time, is not that silly a proposition. And we have the a fossil record to back up this scenario.

Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it? But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses. Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases. Therefore, shall we look at some other situations? Let's start with the development of the eyeball. I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light. The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it. The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives! And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist....now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.

But it was a different thread. Read a book asn stop bothering people about things you could easily look up.

Easily look up? I can look up Bigfoot sightings, that doesn't mean they exist. This argument that I need to Google search the answers to these questions is absurd. Of course, there are explanations and ideas, but that doesn't make them true!! Sorry, but I've read many a book on the evolution of the eye. You know what they say? Nothing about proof of how it evolved. Do you understand?

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.

I can't simply link a book to you and have you say, "Oh, creationism is true! This book says so!". Can I? Nor would I. If you can't explain it in your own words, then you don't truly believe it OR have blindly followed the answer of "some guy". And I've read Dawkins...trust me.

But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless. We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see.

Why is it meaningless to dismiss the concept of god when there is no evidence for such a being? In the absence of that evidence, "We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see." We don't see evidence for the deliberate creation of species. We do see evidence for an entirely natural process (evolution) that has and continues to act on living things.

Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer. Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it? Why is that so absurd?

It becomes absurd when there is zero evidence for special creation and literally tons of evidence (in the fossil record) for evolution, with additional evidence from genetics. It becomes absurd when creationists refuse to accept that evidence because it conflicts with their religious myth.

Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it? But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.

What's your definition of proof? I supplied one link showing some of the key fossils in whale evolution. Further proof can be found in the genetic similarities between modern cetaceans and their closest surviving relatives (the even-toed ungulates).

Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases. Therefore, shall we look at some other situations? Let's start with the development of the eyeball. I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light. The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it. The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives! And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist....now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

The evolution of the eye is a favorite of creationists, because of its supposed "irreduceable complexity". Yet all we need to do is look at examples in nature for a plausible path from light-sensitive cells to the vertebrate (or cephalopod) eyeball:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Evolution is a done deal, rocky12. If you refuse to accept the evidence, then fine. It can't be forced on you. But for your refusal to have any credibility, you need an alternative that explains what we know about biology better than evolution does. And it needs to be backed up with evidence. Without that, it's just your opinions against one of the best-established theories of modern science.

Seriously, what would be definitive proof of evolution for you?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

I looked up the garden of eden on youtube, and guess what. No videos for that either.

We get christian after christian who wants proof of evolution, and when we offer it, they say we're wrong. Then they hold the bible up in front of their screen and we ask for proof and they nobody needs proof, that we just need faith.

Even if we met your criteria for an answer, like with the eyeball, exactly, you would just say "Oh yea, well then, what about balls. Why do guys have balls" and we'd start over from the beginning and you'd complain that there is no way for animals to develop reproductive systems and claim you've read all about balls on the internet and it still sounds fishy to you and then you'd hold your bible up in front of the screen again and wonder how in the f**k we can't see your god.

And i'd say there are no videos of the flood and no videos of jesus and you'd say that's silly and I'd say I want proof and while you set about rejecting every anatomically developed feature in every living thing on the planet, we would continue to ask you to prove your god and you'd do nothing but hold your bible up in front of the screen.

The proof we have available regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution meets our criteria. Tens of thousands of scientific papers and thousands of geologic and paleontologic and archaeologic expeditions, museums and research facilities full of fossils and other pieces of evidence, agreement between specialists ranging from chemists and biologists to developmental anthropologists and zoologists and microbiologists. We've got DNA and multitudinous dating systems and corroborating evidence in the form of everything from ice cores and silt layers to giraffe larynxes and the complete genome of gorillas to prove our case.

You've got one book. And even those who believe it can't agree on much. You've got your amish, your anglican, your baptist, your catholic, your episcopalian, your lutheran, your orthodox, your presbyterian. You've got snake handlers and tongue-talkers and seventh day adventists and jehovah's witnesses and somewhere in the neighborhood of 37,000 other versions, all out of one book. You kill each other for being wrong, you get killed for being wrong, you boss around everyone for being wrong, you refuses to admit when you are wrong, and you think I'm wrong for even bringing up how wrong you are, because my only job is to stare at the bible you are holding up in front of the screen and say "pa-raise-a Jeeeeezus!"

But I don't. And I can prove it if you want a video.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

No, you should read the data, and try to remeber ehat PP said....science makes accurate predictions, which if found false, admits its mistake. Which is why religious folk, wielding the power of their allmighty, as well as the funding of billions of adherents, continue to try, but never have scientifically debunked the ToE. If they could, they would. Following that, Science, as well as most rational people, would have a change of opinion.

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.

I can't simply link a book to you and have you say, "Oh, creationism is true! This book says so!". Can I? Nor would I. If you can't explain it in your own words, then you don't truly believe it OR have blindly followed the answer of "some guy". And I've read Dawkins...trust me.

That's because creationism and intelligent design are not true. There are no lab experiments I can repeat based on thousands of previous published papers.

Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it? But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.

rockv,

You know how forensic scientists come up on a crime scene and investigate the clues left behind after a murder has taken place? They look at the evidence at the crime scene and they piece together what happened based on the clues they find. Do you find this to be a valid way to approach the situation? I mean, after all, most often they have no cameras, no proof, no eyewitnesses, yet they can gather information about the surroundings and make reasonable conclusions as to what happened. This is what scientists are forced to do with the world around us. We are looking at the scene in a snap-shot image of time, while having to understand that a SHIT load of time passed before we got here. We have no cameras that can look back in time. We have no way of knowing, in detail, how every single thing came to be... But that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable conclusions as to what happened based on the evidence we DO have, does it?

Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases.

Yes, we do. With regard to whales, the theory that it was first a land animal is supported by the facts that we observe about whales (such as residual hind limbs, air breathing, teeth invitro, etc). It is the same thing that forensic scientists do at crime scenes; they look at facts and devise theories as to what happened. For example, bullet holes. An entry wound will typically be smaller than an exit wound if a bullet does not hit bone. This fact can lead you to know whether or not someone was shot in the back or front. The shape and look of the wound can also help you determine whether it was close range or far away. There were no cameras, no eyewitnesses, yet they CAN make that determination based on information they gather.

So lets say a forensic scientists comes up with a theory that someone was murdered at long range. If someone comes up with a piece of evidence that totally contradicts that theory (say something like... black soot very close to the wound edges), then they have to come up with a new theory. The theory that whales evolved from land animals is consistent with fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and every other kind of evidence you can come up with. There is NOTHING that contradicts the theory that whales had ancestors that came from land. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that they had land dwelling ancestors, is it not?

Let's start with the development of the eyeball. I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light. The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it. The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives! And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist.

Do you think that one individual among an entire species of individuals who had this capability would have a better or worse chance of survival in an area with high predation? All you have to do to answer this is ask yourself if YOU YOURSELF would have a better chance of escaping a predator in complete darkness, or if you had even the slightest bit of light? Being able to recognize even the slightest bit of light would give you an advantage over another person who couldn't detect any light at all. And thus you would have a higher chance of survival, and more chance to pass your genes (also with the ability to see light) to the next generation.

This is plausible and reasonable to everyone. What is the problem that you see?

...now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

Yes, exactly. Because seeing 2 pinholes of light is better than 1. And 3 is better than 2.

BUT what else do we see? In animals who live in complete darkness, what do you get? Just do a wiki search for 'blind animals' and see what pops up. Blind animals are blind because they live in areas with complete darkness such as caves. In places like that, there is NO statistical advantage to being able to see light because there isn't a single spec to be had. Therefore, there is no advantage to be had by having light detecting abilities.

Sorry, yes, I ignored it, because I thought it was a joke or something. Didn't really give it any thought. Thing about a God and supernatural world/whatnot is.... We can't imagine a God. Does He have an ear? How did it form? How did God get there? These questions may never be answered in this life.

Being satisfied with not knowing things is not something to be admired. To just toss up your hands and say, "Well, we'll never know, so I guess I'll just head to Arby's for a sandwich" is something you might be happy to do, but the rest of us want to know.

That is because our brain evolved to deal with and survive in the world we live in. Fathoming the depths of space is not something that would give us a statistical advantage in terms of survival over anything.

Could it be that there exists another dimension of reality? Some supernatural world where a God exists? Of course, we have NO reason to believe there isn't.

Being open to the possibility of a god and actually forming the opinion that God is real are 2 very, very different things. I am open to the possibility of a god, just like I am open to the possibility that a giant space slug is going to eat the planet Jupiter on the 12th of April 2024, but it would take a lot of evidence in order to make me believe that either of them are real. And if you think the God claim is any more or less evidence dependent than my giant space slug routine, then you aren't looking for truth. You should require evidence for both.

We have a process now that allows us to start unraveling those questions, and it's called the scientific method. It has allowed us to find answers to billions of questions that have been plaguing us for years. It's already answered so many.

But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless.

It's silly in the same way that my giant space slug is silly. Because it's not based on evidence. God creation was a crude attempt by mankind to understand the world we live in. We don't need it anymore. It's outdated. We've moved on from it.

Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer. Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it? Why is that so absurd?

It is rational if all that you know about the world is what you see at face value. In other words, the notion that our world is designed so it must come from a designer is nothing more than the application of logic in the absence of relevant information. I've used this analogy before, but I'm going to use it again... If all you knew about milk was that it came from cows, when you come across chocolate milk, it is logical to think that it is produced by chocolate cows. Again, this is logic applied without relevant facts.

When you add up all the facts of our world, and you realize that natural forces cause things like earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, rain, wind, and then you toss in evolution, and the fact that more than 3/4 of our planet is not habitable by man, then the notion that our world was designed just becomes patently ridiculous. There is just nothing to support that. All the facts point toward a natural world with natural forces and no design. This is why a scientific viewpoint is so often devastating to religion; because you have more facts to work with than religious people do, which leads toward better, more accurate conclusions and away from chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.

As he suggested earlier, video cameras or eyewitnesses. This is clearly intended to set the bar too high for anyone to prove evolution to his satisfaction, so that he can then point to the Bible and say there were eyewitnesses to the events in it, thus the Bible is more reliable than evolution. The fact that this is patently nonsensical apparently doesn't matter to him. Even if the events related in the Gospels counted as eyewitness accounts - which they don't, since there is no proof outside the Bible that those events ever actually happened - the fact that they were not written down for years or decades after the fact would disqualify them under any reasonable considerations. The human memory is anything but infallible, and it's been demonstrated in experiments that discrepancies in eyewitness accounts start creeping in within hours of the memory being formed. Jesus's ministry, according to the Bible, lasted for three years, and there is no chance that someone was recording the events in it as they occurred.

Large/small...who cares? And the first wing allowed it to glide? And the hummingbird took this to the extreme, I guess.... Think about the picture you are painting in your mind. Think about how ridiculous that looks and sounds. Think about the steps involved that you say happened for birds to develop flight. It is so far advanced beyond "gliding to avoid a captor", that it becomes absurd.

The fact that you dismiss the differences between large and small animals so easily demonstrates your disregard for the subject. You are not interested in giving any of us a fair hearing; your demands for proof are a clever ploy to pretend that you are being reasonable, while your actual standards for acceptable proof are set to a bar so high that if you applied them to the Bible, it would flunk those standards as well. Not that I expect you to acknowledge this contradiction, but it does demonstrate your lack of interest in anything but trying to establish your holy book as a valid piece of historical evidence.

And the "picture" is in no way ridiculous. The only reason you conclude that it is, is because you are unwilling to give any evidence a fair hearing unless it meets your ridiculously arbitrary standards of "proof". You made a vague claim about how ridiculous it looks and sounds, and said the steps involved were unworkable, yet you failed to point out any actual contradictions in my reasoning. Such arguments depend on the credulity of the target, and as such have no real convincing power of their own. You are in essence throwing doubt like mud to see if any of it sticks, and that doesn't work except on people who are uninformed as to the subject.

The same applies for your argument that a person must be able to put any scientific argument you call them on into their own words, or else it's just blind belief. This is not a convincing argument. It in essence pretends that a person who accepts that science is relevant and workable must understand any and all fields of science to a purely arbitrary degree, or else it's the equivalent of a religious belief. This is not true. For example, I have a college degree, and as a result, I have a fairly good layman's understanding of scientific fields outside my specialty of computer technology. Therefore, my acceptance of science that goes beyond that understanding depends on how well it fits with what I already know and how coherent it is, that is to say, how well it follows from the basis of what I already know. Science is anything but a religious belief to me, and the idea that my inability to provide an in-depth explanation of evolutionary trends in fossils "proves" is patently absurd.

It would be the same as if you had a basic understanding of computer technology, and because you were unable to explain some esoteric example of high-end computer technology in your own words on demand, it was actually a "religious belief" for you. If I expected that to be a compelling argument, I would rightly be called on it; yet you expect your demands that someone has to give proof of something like evolution in their own words or else it's a religious belief to be taken seriously?

... Yet, nobody wants to tackle how male/female sex evolved, OR the hummingbird.

It is a classic theist tactic to take a portion of a specific theory that is not fully understood yet and use it as the basis for a counter argument. Just because we do not have a perfect working understanding of how sex came to be, that doesn't mean that evolution is falsified; nor does it mean that 'Goddidit' is an acceptable answer.

But the very fact that you chose to point to an example of something that is poorly understood in evolutionary terms, seems to indicate that you are finally beginning to understand the cases that are well understood. That's great. It would be a step in the right direction for you. Good stuff.

It's not that nobody WANTS to tackle sex, it's just that AFAIK nobody fully has yet. That doesn't disprove evolution; it just means the clues left behind are more difficult to sort out. Who knows, though? Is it possible that when we finally understand how sex came to be, that the theory of evolution is falsified? Sure. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

As for the hummingbird, which one of the 356 species do you want to know about? Each species likely evolved along a different path. And what, about hummingbirds in particular, is so difficult to understand in evolutionary terms?

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

This part of the post is where I explain the process. While I'm doing that, you make up some reason to protest my information, or ignore it, whichever is more convenient. As I go into different levels of detail and explain the various advantages organisms that mated had over organisms that didn't and use terms like mitosis and fertilization and pollination, you rack your brain for that word you always use, what was it, oh yea, video, remember to ask for a video, and as I sum up my points with a few links and some quotes, you hold your bible up to the screen again and claim god did it and fend me off one more time.

I hope my explanation was useful in your quest for reliable information and the truth.